|Really? How awesome.|
|Hey marketing types? Doesn’t it get a little warm, what with your pants on fire all the time?|
|How could “The Daily Show” be “inappropriate for high school” when everyone on it appears to have the intelligence and sense of humor of a 16-year-old boy?|
Rachel Maddow has an ongoing critique of the Herman Cain
performance art project campaign on her MSNBC show. Some of the fancy-footwork highlights and general Cain nutty goodness from the Nov. 8 broadcast:
CAIN: Will the businessman by the name of Herman Cain step forward? Here I am. Because that’s the person Herman Cain is. But you see? That’s one thing about Herman Cain that I think a lot of the American people know, and that is just because it’s tough is no reason for me not to do what I feel like I have to do. Some people don’t want to see Herman Cain get the Republican nomination and some people don’t want Herman Cain to become president of the United States of America…The machine to keep a businessman out of the White House is going to be relentless.
Uh, whut now?
Other amusing semantic game-playing:
CAIN: I cannot say that it is a conspiracy. We do not have definitive, factual proof. We can only look at some coincidences to suggest that maybe someone is deliberately behind this. So, we have not been able to make any determination to point any fingers or place any blame on anybody at this point. When we step back and look at the fact that there’s no facts, no factual evidence to back these up, we can only infer that someone is trying to basically wreck my character…
Yep, the fact that there’s no facts can only lead to the conclusion that someone is trying to “wreck” your “character.” We couldn’t conclude, of course, that the women you sexually harassed are actually telling the truth. And as far as wrecking your character goes, dude, I think you demonstrated the content of it pretty clearly, when you tried to coerce and force women to have sex with you.
Oh, and on the very important difference between “settlement” and “agreement”:
CAIN: I’ve been criticized by some members of the media that I have changed my story. When the firestorm started a week ago Monday, I was presented with the accusation of some settlement was made. Settlement to me means there were legal implications. Later during that same day, I then recalled after all those years that there was an agreement. That’s what businesses sign with employees who are departing the company. They call it an agreement. Settlement implies legal implications. All of the potential legal implications or ramifications or accusations were found to be baseless.
I have much more confidence in Cain after that, because all my jobs pay me a year’s severance ($35,000) for no reason other than that I’m “departing the company.” Don’t yours?
The most important part of this show, though, was a brilliant conversation between Rachel and Melissa Harris-Perry of Tulane University — an incredibly rare event in mainstream media, a discussion BETWEEN WOMEN of the way women are portrayed in the media and how that affects politics and real life, and how we can talk to each other about it. Watch the clip (Harris-Perry interview starts at about 5:50).
That might seem like feminism 101 to us, but to hear the truth about the matrix spoken from inside the matrix — I still kinda can’t believe it.
Transcript of that interview after the fold for those who can’t access the video. Continue reading Dude, it’s not because you’re a “businessman.”
I’m only guessing here — I didn’t watch the video — but I bet it sounds an awful lot like “My husband likes to fuck and I’m his property so here we go again!”
It’s just plain wrong to posit this kind of abuse as a wonderful thing that women “choose,” when the vast majority of women around the world limit their fertility if they have the resources and autonomy to do so.
Blame daddy, people, blame daddy, and require him to keep it in his pants.